Union County board recommends denial of Gordon conditional rezoning after residents raise visibility, traffic and land‑use concerns

The Union County Land Use Board recommended denial of conditional rezoning CZ2025‑002 for the Gordon property on May 20, voting 4‑3 to advise against the change.

Planner Bjorn, presenting the staff report, said the request would rezone about 2.65 acres of an 8.46‑acre parcel along Mary Elizabeth Church Road from RA‑40 (rural residential) to a conditional light‑industrial designation to allow vehicle storage tied to an existing auto‑repair business and a possible future 2,400‑square‑foot shop. Bjorn said the rezoning was sought “to correct a zoning violation” but concluded that “the negatives we feel outweigh the positives, so we recommend denial.”

The recommendation matters because the board’s advisory decision will be forwarded to the Union County Board of Commissioners, which will hold the final public hearing on June 16. If the county commissioners override the advisory recommendation and approve the rezoning, the conditional site plan would limit use to the illustrated vehicle storage area and include screening and setbacks shown on the plan.

Board members and residents focused on three core concerns: visibility from nearby roads, the scale of the proposed expansion compared with the historic nonconforming use, and the long‑term effect of changing residential land to light‑industrial. Resident Michelle Burnett said she tried to sell land nearby and heard repeated buyer concerns, asserting that “No one wants to live next door to a junkyard.” Deborah Willis, who said she attended the community meeting, said she understood the Gordons as “good neighbors” but worried that rezoning to industrial could enable other, less compatible uses later and asked whether hazardous materials and water impacts had been considered.

Applicant Gordon testified that he and his family use the parcel for overflow storage tied to a shop across the road and that he intends to add a natural, year‑round buffer to screen the site: “I don’t wanna see it either,” he told the board, and said he would plant screening intended to keep the storage out of sight. He said his primary business is mechanic work for personal vehicles and a small number of local commercial vehicles; he also said he does not routinely work on loaded tractor‑trailers on site.

Board members debated options for limiting impacts through conditions (screening height, limits on combination truck/trailer work, and vehicle size limits). Staff explained a conditional approval could include additional conditions if the applicant agreed; several board members said administrability of highly specific conditions — for example, staff enforcement of vehicle weight limits — could be difficult. The board discussed an S2 screen requirement from the Unified Development Ordinance, which staff described as a continuous opaque screen 6 feet in height with supplemental shade trees and noted that a stronger condition (for example, higher screening) could be included if the applicant accepted it.

After discussion, a motion to recommend denial carried 4‑3. The advisory denial will go to the Board of County Commissioners for a formal public hearing on June 16 at 6 p.m. in the same room. Staff told attendees rezoning notice signs would be posted in the coming week.

The board's action does not change the current legal nonconforming use on the property, and staff noted that the owner may continue to operate within the portion of the site that has been recognized as the legal nonconforming area. Any future change of ownership or new owner would have the same zoning on the land unless the commissioners later approve a rezoning.

For now, neighbors and the applicant will have the opportunity to present the same materials and testimony to the county commissioners at the June public hearing.